United States v. Jack Taylor
690 F. App'x 168
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jack Marty Taylor was convicted after a jury trial of attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) and sentenced to 120 months imprisonment.
- Over several months Taylor exchanged sexually explicit text messages with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old boy (“Bryan”), referencing nakedness, genitalia, masturbation, oral sex, showering together, and sexual innuendo.
- Taylor repeatedly (about 40 times) requested to meet Bryan in person and offered that Bryan sleep over to facilitate sexual activity.
- Taylor arrived at a prearranged time and place to pick up Bryan, conduct the meeting the undercover operation had set, which the government argued was a substantial step toward the offense.
- Taylor raised an entrapment defense at trial, arguing lack of predisposition and that he initially rejected overtures and tried to return to lawful conduct; the jury rejected that defense.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo under the standard that the verdict must stand if a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempt under § 2422(b) | Government: texts + repeated meeting requests + arrival at pickup show intent and substantial step | Taylor: argues evidence insufficient to show intent or substantial step | Affirmed — a rational jury could find intent and a substantial step (arrival to pick up Bryan) |
| Entrapment (predisposition) | Government: evidence of predisposition from months of explicit messages and refusal to disengage | Taylor: no prior offenses with minors; initially rebuffed agent; offered only mentoring; changed topics when sex mentioned | Affirmed — jury could find government proved predisposition; not entrapped |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Klein, 543 F.3d 206 (5th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215 (5th Cir.) (elements of attempt and § 2422(b) substantial-step rule)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir.) (definition of substantial step corroborating criminal intent)
- United States v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326 (5th Cir.) (supporting attempt/enticement precedent)
- United States v. Lundy, 676 F.3d 444 (5th Cir.) (attempt/enticement analysis)
- United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911 (5th Cir.) (predisposition and refusing to disengage evidence)
- United States v. Reyes, 239 F.3d 722 (5th Cir.) (entrapment sufficiency review and predisposition analysis)